S Z Kazmi
COURTS of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and a party that ap-proaches the court with filthy hands taints the stream of justice. The doctrine of clean hands—an equitable maxim that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands”—has travelled from English Chancery Courts. The doctrine maintains that the integrity of the institution and the trust placed in its officials are paramount and, therefore, any breach, re-gardless of when discovered, must be addressed decisively. In Pakistan, courts have invoked the doctrine to deny relief in writ petitions, public interest litigations, civil suits, arbitration-related matters and especially where litigants suppress material facts, misstate the record or otherwise abuse the process. In Pakistan, the clean hands theory continues to be a crucial defender of judicial integrity. When used correctly, it prevents misuse, preserves resources and guarantees that those who deserve it receive fair remedies. It’s also observed now that organized gangs managed court proceedings with due connivance of the court staff like tempering of files and diaries etc., there is no honest disclosure of all the relevant and material facts or are guilty of misleading the Court. Concealment of fact is a serious issue, which amounts to playing fraud upon the Court.
Recently one case filed before Cantonment Board Clifton (CBC), Karachi Rent Court based on bogus rent agreements and other documents. It’s unfortunate at the CBC staff not qualified or don’t have enough knowledge to handle such cases and such acts could not be condoned. The rent court acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner overlooking the specific facts and circumstances by granting relief in violation of the law. A court may look into the actions of the plaintiff/party/ litigant to determine whether they acted improperly. The “unclean hands” defense, which prohibits someone who has committed wrongdoing from abusing the court’s authority, may result from this investigation.
Rather than being based on a particular regulation, the unclean hands doctrine is “equitable defense” that is founded on fairness principles. The legal phrase “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands” encapsulates the basic notion. If a plaintiff has also engaged in illegal behavior connected to the precise subject they are suing over, the court may decline to provide them a remedy.
Such fraudulent acts must not go unaddressed and could not be legitimized—This is based on the principle referred to as the doctrine of unclean hands—This legal doctrine holds that a person who has acted unethically, deceitfully or with dishonesty should not be entitled to the benefits derived from such actions—Particularly in sensitive roles, falsifying documents cannot be trusted to uphold the integrity and responsibilities of that position. Said principle maintains that the integrity of the institution and the trust placed in its officials are paramount and, therefore, any breach, regardless of when discovered, must be addressed decisively. It is imperative that a one must approach Court with clean hands, presenting all relevant facts fully and transparently, without any concealment or suppression. Failure to make an honest and complete disclosure of all material facts may render guilty of misleading the Court. When the basic order is without lawful authority, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically. A decision or decree acquired by deceiving the court is void and can be contested in any court, including collateral proceedings, according to the Supreme Court’s well-known observation. Despite being characterized as fraud, the reasoning is sometimes combined with clean hands: a plaintiff cannot keep the benefit if they conceal important papers or facts in order to get relief.
Fraud and justice never dwell together. Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and a party approaching the Court with unclean hands renders the stream of justice sullied— It is observed that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused by unscrupulous persons from all walks of life and such abuse of process is considered by such litigants as a convenient device to achieve and retain their illegal objectives and designs. Unfortunately, this practice is spreading its tentacles on wider planes primarily on account of leniency exhibited towards such litigants as they generally go off scot-free. Therefore, that a person, whose case is based on concealment and falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and such litigant must be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation, with costs.
—The writer is a senior lawyer based in Karachi.
